My God, I feel free. I can't tell you how nice it is not having the Whore of Akron out there slowing this team down.

When Byron Scott talks about having a scrappy, unselfish team, does he mean the actual plan is to have 5 mediocre players out there at the same time, any one of whom is as likely to throw the ball away or dribble off their foot as the other?

I should have started it, I am our good luck charm... 1 for 1. Wasn't able to get to a computer though. I am still watching... just sucks I wont get my 30 games a year on national tv... illegal streams for me!

Even though this team is losing, I still enjoy watching them. I really like this team.

And JJ Hickson will be an all-star, if not this year then next. That man's progression has been phenomenal. He really outplayed Horford tonight, and he's been an all-star, and I see no reason why Hickson won't be better than Horford.

Why is rebuilding versus going forward with this roster an either-or proposition?

It's like, either they need to be good enough to win more than they lose, or they need to get rid of everything not nailed down or named "Hickson."

Why can't the Cavs do what the Heat did a few years back when they won 15? Or the Nets last year? Keep most of the roster intact and endure the bad year, and hopefully something better than Supercool Beas is waiting on draft night with the pick the lotto balls give you.

That's not to say you keep everyone, but there might be a middle ground between Kevin Bacon's Chip Diller ("Remain calm! All is well!") and demo-charging the roster like Central Market pre-Gateway. An option where you keep the pieces that could help form a future nucleus and jettison what you can't use.

Peek, you've pointed out the many deficiencies of this roster, and you might be on to something. This team might be primed for 15-67 as it stands right now. So why mess with that? Last thing this team needs is to trade for a bunch of vets on expiring contracts, who might actually help the team play better in the short term.

If you want a high pick, do you really want to litter the roster with guys playing for contracts?

Maybe the Cavs are already on the trajectory they need to be on. If you desperately need a top five pick in your near future, why screw around with a roster that already can't rebound or play defense?

papacass wrote:Why is rebuilding versus going forward with this roster an either-or proposition?

It's like, either they need to be good enough to win more than they lose, or they need to get rid of everything not nailed down or named "Hickson."

Why can't the Cavs do what the Heat did a few years back when they won 15? Or the Nets last year? Keep most of the roster intact and endure the bad year, and hopefully something better than Supercool Beas is waiting on draft night with the pick the lotto balls give you.

That's not to say you keep everyone, but there might be a middle ground between Kevin Bacon's Chip Diller ("Remain calm! All is well!") and demo-charging the roster like Central Market pre-Gateway. An option where you keep the pieces that could help form a future nucleus and jettison what you can't use.

Peek, you've pointed out the many deficiencies of this roster, and you might be on to something. This team might be primed for 15-67 as it stands right now. So why mess with that? Last thing this team needs is to trade for a bunch of vets on expiring contracts, who might actually help the team play better in the short term.

If you want a high pick, do you really want to litter the roster with guys playing for contracts?

Maybe the Cavs are already on the trajectory they need to be on. If you desperately need a top five pick in your near future, why screw around with a roster that already can't rebound or play defense?

There's never any middle ground in these message board arguments Cass. You've been around here long enough. Those of us that don't think the Cavs are going to win 40 games drop immediately down to "hater" status. So, for the talent they have you've got a group that has them overachieveing and you've got a group of haters.

When the talk of "tearing it down" or not comes up, it's viewed with the same extreme thinking. I, for one - a proponent of the thinking that a Clevland based NBA team is going to elevate to championship level exclusively thru high draft picks, have never even broached specifics with this team as far as how this gets done. I think the talent level (or lack thereof) will take care of itself. Blow it up, or let it fizzle out - point is, those are the options if you wanna get good again. Not hanging on to one or two young guys that can play and scrapping up guys around them, in a market that doesn't draw free agents.

Think Browns two years ago. They need pretty much everything. Point Guard, size. rebounding, interior defender, guys that can create their own shot, scorers and most importantly, a couple of stars.

The Cavs simply don't have the talent to beat Atlanta unless they play near-perfect basketball. That being said, they can improve.

They lost last night mainly because Atlanta took 10 more shots. The Cavs committed 14 turnovers against only 7 by the Hawks, plus the Hawks got four more offensive rebounds. If the Cavs could have controlled the defensive glass a little better and cut back on the sloppy passing, they would have been right there at the end.

JJ was the main culprit with 5 turnovers. He had a great offensive game with 31 points, but those 5 turnovers detracted somewhat.

Atlanta had 26 assists against 7 turnovers whereas the Cavs had only 15 assists and 14 TO's. It's clear which was the better passing team.

The Cavs guards really had a bad night. Mo, Boobie, Ramon, and AP were a combined 13-for-41 from the field for 32%. Factor in the low assist number and it was just a bad night all around for the backcourt. They still get beat off the dribble a lot as well, which helped Atlanta get 26 assists in 37 field goals.

Scott has a lot to work on with this group. He can start by eliminating the lazy, careless passes.

Cass- there are people here and in the media who told me this was a 40-50 win team and a playoff team.

Are you telling me today that they can achieve a 15 win season with the exact same roster that was predicted to win 40-50 a couple weeks ago?

Pros- There's always room for improvement. But it's not going to likely come from Mo or Boobie, two guys who will have the ball in their hands a lot in this offense. Those guys have never been the slick ball handling, pass first PGs and no one here has anywhere near enough info on Sessions to know if he is either. By all indications he's more of a Mo clone than a Rondo-type.

So, while theoretically true, you're more likely to have plenty of TO/Assist nights like last night then you are to have marked improvement from the guys who we already know about.

I think the biggest issue is people here still believe it was LeIso that stunted the passing and ballhandling ability of Boobie and Mo. It wasn't. It was Boobie and Mo. And those believing that AV and Jamo will be better off freed up from the tyranny of LeIso are in for a very long season too.

As I said before, I'd be first in line to piss on TWoA's corpse. But to believe that the roster didn't benefit immensely from his presence and that there was going to be a huge bloom from the guys he suppressed for years is simply crazy.

What many of us might forget when analyzing the talent (or lack thereof) on this year's team is that most of the "parts" were obtained specifically to complement "The Whore of Akron." Boobie, Mo, AP, Jamo, Antawn, Andy ... hell, even JJ. Since the departure of aforementioned TWoA, the team is left with a bunch of players who obviously do NOT fit together at either end of the court. Eventually, the whole roster will need to be remade rather than trying to cram square pegs into round holes.

For instance, the Cavs used to be able to get away with playing Boobie and Mo at the same time, since TWoA, Shaq and Z could guard the rim. But now it's perfectly ridiculous to play Boobie and Mo at the same time. There's always going to be an opposing 6-4, 6-5 or 6-6 two-guard to post up one of them and get some easy baskets down low. We've already seen it.

Remaking the entire roster ain't going to be easy, and it's going to take three years MINIMUM. If it's possible at all.

TWoA give Cleveland the finger in many more ways than one. Dan Gilbert and Chris Grant may yet have some magic up their sleeves, but it's not a stretch to say that TWoA destroyed the franchise forever (or for the rest of our lifetimes, anyway).

Lead: In a market like this, the Cavs will of course need to hit on most of their picks, whether at 1, 5, 10 or 20. The Cavs got bad enough to get LBJ by introducing new and creative ways to not find usable talent in the top 10 picks (Wasn't Dajuan Wagner "Iverson with muscles" at one point?)

That's how you end up as an organization that needs a guy like LeBron to rescue it. That's just a crappy way to build a team, and you can make a case that the Cavs never really totally shook the organization suck in LBJ's seven years here. Danny Ferry did a pretty good job all things considered, but he was relegated more to hole-plugging than team-building.

I understand the need to dip low enough to get that top five pick that might net a star player. And you might want to do as Sacto did and draft that high for 2-3 years. But the suck won't be totally shed until the Cavs can find a Tayshaun Prince at 20, let alone a Tyreke Evans at 2 or DeMarcus Cousins at 5.

The battle will be won if the Cavs can sink low enough to draft high and find a Wall or Reke or someone of that nature. But the war won't be won until the Cavs are competitive, picking in the second half of the first round and still finding guys who can ball -- like, soon. Not Congolese kids who might be able to ball in 2015.

The Browns, Indians and Cavs are all in the same boat. They ain't gonna do shite until they draft well every stinkin' year.

You don't lock yourself into mediocrity when you have a 40-win roster.

You lock yourself into mediocrity when you pay that 40-win roster like they are a championship core.

Look at Memphis. Overpaying for Rudy Gay, overpaying for Conley, probably going to overpay for Z-Bo. THAT is a team that's locked into sucking for some time to come.

I don't think anybody seriously disputes that this team is worse without TWoA. (Although, 45-50 games worse? I'll dispute that.) But that's history. The priorities for this season are:

1. to see what we have in Hickson and Sessions, and to a lesser extent Hollins;2. to not pay any of those guys mad jack (possible exception for Hix if he emerges as a legit 20-10 guy; I think the odds are against it, but think the chance is better than nothing);3. to not add any other significant long-term payroll, unless the team dumping that payroll has to shed a couple of picks and/or a good young player as the CODB;4. while keeping #3 in mind, to not let the huge trade exception die on the vine.

Yes, it's a big blow to think this way when the past three or four seasons have had a priority of "win it all", but the Cavs aren't there now, and they won't be for at least a couple of years. That said, their salary commitments go way down over the next couple of years. The key is to not tie up that salary flexibility in building a 40-50 win team.

If it flies, floats, or fornicates, always rent it -- it's cheaper in the long run.

I agree with all of that DS. Keep the flexibility and don't overpay for 'suck'.

I'm just poking at the people who are a few weeks back were telling me LeIso smothered the club and that the we were looking at some heretofore buried roses that would soon be blooming.

Thus far, Mo and Boobie and the rest are pretty much exactly what some people thought they were all along.

They're just guys.

And it should be clearer with every game that TWoA was probably responsible for about 800 open looks and 200 dunks a year. With or without the ridiculous LeIso crap.

Seriously, he likely gave guys about ten more open looks a game through the coverage he drew and he was responsible for at least 3 dunks a night from guys like AV off of cuts or Z off of offensive boards.

End of the season you'll see one guy who was responsible for a difference of about 35 games in the standing. That's somewhat substantial. And again, it ain't pining for the PoS, it's simple basketball games won and lost.

No, he ain't walking back through the door. Recognized.

But this team ain't winning 40-50 without him. They're not good. Recognize.

leadpipe wrote:There's never any middle ground in these message board arguments Cass. You've been around here long enough.

I typed my reply to Cass before reading ^ and obviously we agree on that point. In an effort to continue that trend, while you may think we think of you as "haters", we on the opposite side, think you think of us as dumbasses.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

papacass wrote:Why is rebuilding versus going forward with this roster an either-or proposition?

Because in the world of internet message boards its all about being 100% right and emoticons.

Disagree- I thought there might be too much talent to actually go about the rebuilding thing the right way.

I was 100% wrong. You probably don't have to trade any of it to be lottery-bad. This team will win 30 only if they don't quit on Scott and they roll up some bad teams late who have already packed it in.

I did think in the world of internet message boards it was actually all about making bold predictions that flew in the face of logic and a cursory look at a roster. So I was a 100% wrong there too.

peeker643 wrote:But this team ain't winning 40-50 without him. They're not good. Recognize.

Peeks, I'm recognizing that you're in the other 10%.

That said -- debating whether a TWoA-less Cavs can win 40-50 games is like debating whether Janet Reno could get you off. I don't know, and I don't want to know, and I don't see why we're wondering about the answer.

Whether the Cavs win 25 games or 40 games this season, it's not going to make an impact on their future. Maybe a few extra ping pong balls in the lottery, which doesn't matter unless you happen to hit the lotto a year that the top pick is TWoA rather than Kwame.

Not that this is news, but if you're going to watch the Cavs this season, it is going to be for a completely different set of reasons than the past few years. If this team somehow sneaks into the playoffs, they'll get mowed down like the French in that one war -- you know, the one with the guns. That's their ceiling. What I'll be watching for is what I said before -- signs of improvement from the young guys + signs that the front office actually has a clue about what they are doing (I'm skeptical but willing to be convinced otherwise).

If it flies, floats, or fornicates, always rent it -- it's cheaper in the long run.

GodHatesClevelandSport wrote:If Mike Brown was a bad coach with good players ...

... and Byron Scott is a good coach with bad players ...

... what good is a coach?

A good coach can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit. But a bad coach can do the reverse. And a good coach can make a good team better. Unless, of course, you think TZM has two hands full of rings simply because he coached MJ and Kobe, as though any schnook could step off the Cleveland.com boards and win too.

If it flies, floats, or fornicates, always rent it -- it's cheaper in the long run.

Cass- there are people here and in the media who told me this was a 40-50 win team and a playoff team.

Are you telling me today that they can achieve a 15 win season with the exact same roster that was predicted to win 40-50 a couple weeks ago?

Yes, at least this guy did not foresee Jamison being this much of a 0, he had been on horrible teams in the past, again did not see that coming. Andy and Mo both played little to none in the pre-season and have played little so far. Said in all those posts that comprise "some of those people", that we needed 20 games to tell what we have. In 4 games it looks like the blow it up route is obviously right. However they are doing such a great job at losing that we may net ourselves the number 1 pick without a single other move, allowing us to be even more discriminating in trades.

On the LeISO I do remember thinking/posting it retarded the play Mo(don't know how many other guys I listed by extension). This idea was forwarded by watching his game in Mil, not by stats. Never said TEAM was better without James, think that was pretty much a given. In all honesty Mo has played 1 game off the bench, and your already taking your arguement as solid? What about sample size?

Just look at the second post in the predicitoon thread after I was called out on my 48 win prediction. I don't know how much more flimsy/qualified/realistic an opinion can be...

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Peeks (I hate quote boxes too), go back to my second post in the prediction thread. I think I'm pretty realistic, and this thing is breaking towards 15-20 wins fast. Sure I was being a fanboy, I'll probably do it again too. Look at some of my Browns predictions before the season... The Indians will always be losers.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

DS"Not that this is news, but if you're going to watch the Cavs this season, it is going to be for a completely different set of reasons than the past few years. If this team somehow sneaks into the playoffs, they'll get mowed down like the French in that one war -- you know, the one with the guns. That's their ceiling. What I'll be watching for is what I said before -- signs of improvement from the young guys + signs that the front office actually has a clue about what they are doing (I'm skeptical but willing to be convinced otherwise)."

EXACTLY! (Given that it doesn't seem they will get anywhere near my prediction.)

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

peeker643 wrote:But this team ain't winning 40-50 without him. They're not good. Recognize.

Peeks, I'm recognizing that you're in the other 10%.

That said -- debating whether a TWoA-less Cavs can win 40-50 games is like debating whether Janet Reno could get you off. I don't know, and I don't want to know, and I don't see why we're wondering about the answer.

Whether the Cavs win 25 games or 40 games this season, it's not going to make an impact on their future. Maybe a few extra ping pong balls in the lottery, which doesn't matter unless you happen to hit the lotto a year that the top pick is TWoA rather than Kwame.

Not that this is news, but if you're going to watch the Cavs this season, it is going to be for a completely different set of reasons than the past few years. If this team somehow sneaks into the playoffs, they'll get mowed down like the French in that one war -- you know, the one with the guns. That's their ceiling. What I'll be watching for is what I said before -- signs of improvement from the young guys + signs that the front office actually has a clue about what they are doing (I'm skeptical but willing to be convinced otherwise).

Because I'm really trying to figure out where the talented guys who will get them to 50 wins are hiding.

Nothing else. The esteemed Mr. Amico had them with fitty wins. Others here are in the neighborhood. OJ says his was 'fanboy' based and I appreciate the honesty. Is that the case for others? I can understand that. Honestly I can. We want it to be so as a finger in the face of TWoA and for our collective well-being.

I get 'fanboy'. I'm guilty of it all too often myself. What scares me is if there are peeps who actually believe TWoA was the wet blanket that was keeping the light from shining on the ready-to-bust-out careers of Mo, Boobie, AV, etc. That's worrisome to me.

Orenthal wrote:Peeks (I hate quote boxes too), go back to my second post in the prediction thread. I think I'm pretty realistic, and this thing is breaking towards 15-20 wins fast. Sure I was being a fanboy, I'll probably do it again too. Look at some of my Browns predictions before the season... The Indians will always be losers.

Dude- I'm busting balls 98% of the time. I appreciate your 'fanboy' prediction. I get it. I understand the whys and wherefors and I'm often in the same boat. It's just board needling and dicking around.

On the rare nights when it appears I'm right I get a little froggy. Blow out my chest a bit.

If they rattle off seven straight wins you can bet your balls I'll be scarce as a $3 bill.

Long term I feel like some fluke ball bouncing their way in the lottery is their only chance. But on a night to night basis I'm hoping for a win every time.

leadpipe wrote:There's never any middle ground in these message board arguments Cass. You've been around here long enough.

I typed my reply to Cass before reading ^ and obviously we agree on that point. In an effort to continue that trend, while you may think we think of you as "haters", we on the opposite side, think you think of us as dumbasses.

If that's the case, you aren't giving me any credit for being rational.

You and I can have a difference of opinion, but neither one of us is mindlessly on the extreme that we're speaking of.

That's the difference between those that lend something to the board - and those that don't.

So, I don't think of you as a dumbass in any way, I've seen far too much proof to know that's not the case, however, I've got no problem on coming down on someone who only looks at things in extremes - and perhaps treat them as dumbasses, because they aren't lending anything to the boards anyway.

And the whole subject of Lebron is a perfect example. Of course it's magnified here, for obvious reasons, but it's a perfect example of how many fans can't seperate the hate from the play. We can argue to what degree he helped/hurt teammates or his degree of selfishness on the court etc.....but you've got more than a few acting like the prick was a total cipher. I mean, Christ, at a MINIMUM he's the only HOFer in team history. Just because he F'd us over doesn't eliminate him from being the only HOFer in team history.

Lasty OJ, see the post above this one. First bullet point is that Hickson is going to be a "superstar" after his first good game of the year. We might discuss at this point his ceiling, the fact he's got this much talent, he looks like a good player etc. - annointing him a "superstar" might be considered.....extreme. Then the 2nd point related to being able to ref the game better from the upper tank.....

Last edited by leadpipe on Wed Nov 03, 2010 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

papacass wrote:Lead: In a market like this, the Cavs will of course need to hit on most of their picks, whether at 1, 5, 10 or 20. The Cavs got bad enough to get LBJ by introducing new and creative ways to not find usable talent in the top 10 picks (Wasn't Dajuan Wagner "Iverson with muscles" at one point?)

That's how you end up as an organization that needs a guy like LeBron to rescue it. That's just a crappy way to build a team, and you can make a case that the Cavs never really totally shook the organization suck in LBJ's seven years here. Danny Ferry did a pretty good job all things considered, but he was relegated more to hole-plugging than team-building.

I understand the need to dip low enough to get that top five pick that might net a star player. And you might want to do as Sacto did and draft that high for 2-3 years. But the suck won't be totally shed until the Cavs can find a Tayshaun Prince at 20, let alone a Tyreke Evans at 2 or DeMarcus Cousins at 5.

The battle will be won if the Cavs can sink low enough to draft high and find a Wall or Reke or someone of that nature. But the war won't be won until the Cavs are competitive, picking in the second half of the first round and still finding guys who can ball -- like, soon. Not Congolese kids who might be able to ball in 2015.

The Browns, Indians and Cavs are all in the same boat. They ain't gonna do shite until they draft well every stinkin' year.

I agree with all of this.

Our discord lies in the fact (or it seemed a couple weeks back) that you felt the team was already somewhere around competitive - and I think they are pretty much light years away. From my perspective, to simply get competitive they are going to need high choices - than of course from there, you needs to uncover the late 1st nuggets, or maybe better said, get lucky. And, as I mentioned last week, it's a shame you've got to depend so much on luck, but it's the reality of this market.

So, yes, field a competitive squad, and do your due diligence in the draft, and be fortunate. I'm all for that recipe - but step number one is getting competitive.

GodHatesClevelandSport wrote:If Mike Brown was a bad coach with good players ...

... and Byron Scott is a good coach with bad players ...

... what good is a coach?

A good coach can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit. But a bad coach can do the reverse. And a good coach can make a good team better. Unless, of course, you think TZM has two hands full of rings simply because he coached MJ and Kobe, as though any schnook could step off the Cleveland.com boards and win too.

TZM's rings have a lot more to do w/MJ and Kobe than MJ's and Kobe's rings have to do with TZM.

I think we're looking at a three-year plan, maybe four. The Cavs payroll this year is $52 million. In two years (2012-13) it will be $21 million with only Mo, AV, Boobie, Sessions, JJ, and Eyenga still on the books. They may try to extend a couple of guys (Moon? Hollins?) and they'll have draft picks, but they should have a bucketload of money to spend on free agents.

So they get lottery picks in 2011 and 2012. They use the cap space to sign a couple of significant free agents prior to the 2012-2013 season, or a year earlier. That's four quality player in addition to AV, JJ, Sessions, and Mo, assuming they can't unload Mo. If they hit on their picks like they did with JJ, who was #19 overall IIRC and get a couple of quality free agents, they have a shot at being competitive by the '12-13' season. So we endure two years of suck starting now.

The key is hitting on those two lottery picks and signing free agents who fit the system and complement what they have already and what they get in the draft. Best case scenario is a mid-2000s Detroit Pistons type of team that can challenge every year without a true superstar and win a Championship when all the stars align.

I'm not sure what other plan there could be but I'm open to suggestions.

As for this year, my only prediction is they're going to get better but there are too many inherent weaknesses to overcome.

Lead I agree with your post after Rat's. I'm just tired of being poked by Peeker. Look how he is ripping off my "Game Thread".

My lil quote you got there was partly in jest. IMO I think we have reached the limit of Cavalier analyzin', all things being equal. They have to play more games and either, lose, or Grant/Gilbert have to pull a miracle. After 4 games it looks bad, and that can be good... I'm not too stubborn to admit this would look better with Harrison Barnes, instead of Trajan Langdon...

We have no one that draws a double team.

My dude is Kanter due to our total suck on the interior. Guy has legit size, hopefully he sees the floor for Kentucky so I can figure if his skills are legit.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."